Darwin’s arguments against God

How Darwin rejected the doctrines of Christianity

Charles Darwin grew up embracing the ‘intelligent design’ thinking of his day—William Paley’s renowned argument that the design of a watch implies there must have been an intelligent watchmaker, and so design in the universe implies there must have been an intelligent Creator.1 Concerning this, Darwin wrote, ‘I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley’s “Natural Theology”.2 I could almost formerly have said it by heart.’3

Nevertheless, Darwin spent most of the rest of his life attempting to explain design in nature without the need for any purpose or a guiding intelligence...

What a cute little girl Annie Darwin was. It’s sad that his faith, knowledge of scripture, and relationship with God wasn’t strong enough to overcome her tragic death. Sad that countless millions have been led to Hell by his subsequent rejection of God. We forget how Satan really knows what he’s doing. This attest the importance of a local church in earnestly contending with error as soon as it occurs, before it takes on a life of it’s own and millions are damned.

9
posted on 03/11/2009 8:46:29 AM PDT
by demshateGod
(The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)

I see no evidence of 'evelution'. Adaptation is simply part of the orifional design, and that is all Darwin ever observed is adaptation of species to different enviroments.

So, you should say "Adaptation and Christianity are perfectly compatable", Because God in his infinite wisdom included in all the seeds oflife a wide spectrum of genes etc. that would lay dormant until needed to help his creation adapt to changing conditions.

Come on. He was a devoted Christian. The Noah's Ark paradigm of the 1800s broke down with too MANY new discoveries. His ideas were brilliant at the time. Stop trashing Darwin. I still cant figure how ID is supposed to fix into the 1800s Noah's Ark paradigm or what they are actually claiming.

That is the only argument that I needed to hear to understand why Darwin created his THEORY. A lot of people don't want to believe in the possibility of hell. If you believe in heaven and hell and in God, then you have to believe that one day you will have to answer for your actions. That means that you might have to... hold on now... take RESPONSIBILITY for your actions. So instead, people create different religions and theories. Charles Taze Russel, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, did the same thing. He didn't believe that a loving God could send someone to hell, so he created his own religion where hell does not exist.

Life is easier when you don't have to answer to anyone, unfortunately, that misleading thought will not save you from the certainty of hell. I'd rather believe and be wrong, then be wrong and go to hell.

> Is it not true that Darwin himself regretted his own
> beliefs on his death bed? That he denounced his life work
> for the damage it had done while he lay dying.
>
> Who knows what kind of salvation he may have asked for in
> his last moments. I leave that judgment up to God all
> mighty.

From Darwin’s daughter: “I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. The whole story has no foundation whatever.” [7]

17
posted on 03/11/2009 9:00:30 AM PDT
by Westbrook
(Having more children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)

Prior to the so called ‘evil work of Darwin’ the Bible was the science book ~ the scientific paradigm and serious scientists (real Creationist scientists not these fakes) tried to place all the ‘Kinds’ on the Ark. But it broke down with new fossil discoveries and Darwin came up with a brilliant new one. For that he burns in hell forever sentenced by modern day witch burners, some on this thread. A new completely fraudulent version of Scientific Creationism cropped up that proposes nothing , explains nothing , but dooms Darwin to Hell.

Jesus definitely did take on a lot for us. I love this description of it...

A man is on trial for the sins he has committed. The judge finds the man guilty and he is sentenced to death for his transgressions. Jesus, as the mans lawyer, asks the judge to set the man free and let Him pay the penalty for the mans sins.

That is what Jesus did for us on the cross. I wish I could say I thank him everyday for it. Unfortunately I get caught up in my own life and take advantage of the gift he gave us all. Thankfully we have forgiveness through His name.

PS The fact that Darwin formulated arguments against God is news to a lot of people, and would be of special interest to the Christian Right, one of the main pillars of the Reagan Coalition (which many in the Darwin/Country Club wing of the Republican Party are foolishly pushing into the
“none of the above” category).

You are quite the spammer. Darwin’s personal views are maybe interesting to historians. But we have the theory of evolution, not a theory of Darwin. You might find some horrible thing Isaac Newton once wrote, yet gravity still exists. So it goes for evolution.

23
posted on 03/11/2009 9:23:16 AM PDT
by Alter Kaker
(Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)

"the scientific paradigm and serious scientists (real Creationist scientists not these fakes) tried to place all the Kinds on the Ark. But it broke down with new fossil discoveries and Darwin came up with a brilliant new one..

Think nothign of his statement- it’s just another generalization without any evidnece to back it up- There was plenty of room for hte original kinds- sickoflibs will have to show Noah infact must have forgotten some kinds IF he’s to make his case, but I’m sure he’s got Noah’s checklist handy to show us. My bet is that sickoflibs is only goign to throw out examples of MICROEVOLUTION in his ‘discovery of “NEW” species claim- same old same old argument- Macroevolutionists can’t cede that creationism is NOT averse to speciation which is MICROEvolution- kinds beget kinds.

"Its called a theory and this one is backed by reproducable experimental facts."

Such as?

The young earth theory combined with rapid changes due to catastrophic event as described in "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood " by Dr.Walt Brown blows the evolution theory out of the water and has far more "proofs" to the theory than evolutionary theory ever will.

Except that the THEORY of evolution can’t explain the simplest and most obvious observations, like where is the river delta from all the silt that should be at the outlet of the Colorado river where it empties into the gulf of California after carving out the grand canyon for millions of years?

Except that the THEORY of evolution cant explain the simplest and most obvious observations, like where is the river delta from all the silt that should be at the outlet of the Colorado river where it empties into the gulf of California after carving out the grand canyon for millions of years?

Back in the 1700s is was possible to group all known history life into groups (Kinds) and fit them on the Ark. But as more digging took place they found so many different types of life fossils, mostly layered by complexity, there was no way they could be on the Ark. In fact the writers of Genesis had never seen life outside of local Biblical area.

After Darwin's ideas took hold a new group of phony Creationists cropped up and completely ignored the problems the serious ones tried to deal with in the 1980s. They only had one theory “Darwin and anyone that listened to him burns in hell forever” . Then they act outraged they are not allowed to teach that theory in science class.

[[Back in the 1700s is was possible to group all known history life into groups (Kinds) and fit them on the Ark. But as more digging took place they found so many different types of life fossils, mostly layered by complexity, there was no way they could be on the Ark. In fact the writers of Genesis had never seen life outside of local Biblical area.]]

This is al ie- IF you bothered to actually check out your claim further, you would note that there was plenty of room on the ark with room to spare- the estimates have been done, and it would NOT have been impossible as you claim- EVEN IF more species are found- which isn’t likely concidering we have documented most known species kinds already- sorry, but your claim doesn’t wash

shhhh- don’t mention that radiocarbon dating is only accurate to about.... 10,000 or so years- beyond that, it’s all nothign but speculation and assumptions- but alas, we creationists ‘don’t understand’. We ‘don’t understand’ for instance that ALL the dating methods have SERIOUS problems associated with htem such as the following major dating methods:

Obsidian Hydration Dating
Many obsidians are crowded with microlites and crystallines (gobulites and trichites), and these form fission-track-like etch pits following etching with hydrofluoric acid. The etch pits of the microlites and crystallines are difficult to separate from real fission tracks formed from the spontaneous decay of 238U, and accordingly, calculated ages based on counts including the microlite and crystalline etch pits are not reliable.http://trueorigin.org/dating.asphttp://www.scientifictheology.com/STH/Pent3.html

John Woodmorappe, author of the definitive Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, estimated that only about 15% of the animals on the ark would have been larger than a sheep. This figure does not take into account the possibility that God may have brought Noah infant animals, which can be significantly smaller than adult animals.

How many animals were on the ark? Woodmorappe estimates about 16,000 kinds. What is a kind? The designation of kind is thought to be much broader than the designation species. Even as there are 400-something dog breeds but they all belong to one species (Canis familiaris), in the same way many species can belong to one kind. Some think that the designation genus may be somewhat close to the Biblical kind.

Nevertheless, even if we presume that kind is synonymous with species, there are not very many species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles. The leading systematic biologist, Ernst Mayr, gives the number as 17,600. Allowing for two of each species on the ark, plus seven of the few so-called clean kinds of animals, plus a reasonable increment for known extinct species, it is obvious that not more than say, 50,000 animals were on the ark. (Morris, 1987)

Some have estimated that there were as many as 25,000 kinds of animals represented on the ark. This is a high-end estimation. With two of each kind and seven of some the number of animals would exceed 50,000, though not by very much relatively speaking. Regardless, whether there were 16,000 or 25,000 kinds of animals, even with two of each and seven of some, scholars agree that there was plenty of room for all of the animals on the ark, plus food and water with room to spare.

What about all of the excrement produced by all of these animals? How did 8 people manage to feed all of those animals and deal with tons of excrement on a daily basis? What about animals with specialized diet? How did plant-life survive? What about insects? There are a thousand other questions like these which could be raised and they are all good questions. In the minds of many, these questions are unanswerable. But they are certainly nothing new. They have been asked over and over for centuries. And in all of that time researchers have sought answers. There are now numerous, very scholarly feasibility studies which have put Noah and his ark to the test.

With over 1,200 scholarly references to academic studies, Woodmorappes book is a modern systematic evaluation of the alleged difficulties surrounding Noah's Ark (John Woodmorappe, A Resource for Answering the Critics of Noahs Ark, Impact No. 273 March 1996. Institute for Creation Research, 30 January 2005 http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-273.htm). Woodmorappe claims that after years of systematically examining all of the questions which have been raised over the years, all of the arguments against the Ark are found wanting. In fact, the vast majority of the anti-Ark arguments, at first superficially plausible, turn out to be easily invalidated. (www.gotquestions.org)

RE “This is al ie- IF you bothered to actually check out your claim further, you would note that there was plenty of room on the ark with room to spare- the estimates have been done, and it would NOT have been impossible as you claim- EVEN IF more species are found- which isnt likely concidering we have documented most known species kinds already- sorry, but your claim doesnt wash”

Are you kidding? Who did the estimates that all the Dinosours would fit? You are talking about millions of species over millions of years, all fitting on the Ark. (most of which were unknown till 1800s, the Biblical writers knew of a couple dozen animal types if lucky) Imagine Noah putting the Tyrannosaurus on his Ark with the other animals 10K years ago.. You cant be serious.... You NEVER hear Creationists debaters tell audiences this. They skip it completely because they dont want to be laughed at .

"But as more digging took place they found so many different types of life fossils, mostly layered by complexity, there was no way they could be on the Ark. In fact the writers of Genesis had never seen life outside of local Biblical area."

All neatly layered in the "fossil layer" in correct order and age they existed, right? No matter if, over the "millions of years" there were floods, earth quakes and other catastrophic events that mixed them around a few times...

There’s plenty of evidence for evolution—it’s been discussed on this board over and over again. More importantly, the scientific literature is fairly unified on the topic. Of course, if evidence to the contrary is found and confirmed, then the scientific position will change. That’s the way science works.

Speaking of God’s infinite wisdom, I think that evolution was a stroke of genius, don’t you?

45
posted on 03/11/2009 10:31:55 AM PDT
by Buck W.
(The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)

Your picture of Noah leading a Tyrannosaurus onto the Ark with all the other animals for a extended period of time is making my laugh for the day.

I bet these guys you cite avoid this topic when they win all those debates with the ‘evil’ evolutionists. It certainly wasnt in their scientific creation books they packaged for public schools in 1980s.

"Are you kidding? Who did the estimates that all the Dinosours would fit? You are talking about millions of species over millions of years, all fitting on the Ark."

Where is the proof of that? Please don't offer "theories" as fact. They aren't. Acheology isn't an exact science either. Fish bones aren't dinosaurs, but how many times have whare bones been offered up as dinosaur bones? Chicken bones from some China mans last diner?

Thanks! You took my words ‘mostly layered’ and changed them to ‘neatly layered’ This is exactly what Creationist books are full of. You take the evolutionists words, change them, then ridiculed the newly created meaning. Gish was famous for this. He knew he readers would never check the original source because he told them 'reading evolutionist books leads to eternity in hell' as some on this thread repeated. This allowed him to tell his readers almost anything

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.